Pensions are under attack. The goals are twofold. Increase profits for financial companies and reduce the economic power of sharholders.

If the Kochs and their allies succeed in smashing and scattering these last remaining pension funds into millions of 401(k)s, they will do more than just undermine the retirement security of millions of Americans. They will silence their economic voice. The pension reform drive should be understood, at least in part, as a campaign of economic voter suppression. And it is coming, soon, to a jurisdiction near you, if it isn’t there already.

The staff here at NobodyisFlyingthePlane is, like most, fatigued by news of mass shootings. Going forward we are going to try to focus on solutions oriented posts.

Kristof’s piece, linked below, poses the conversation as one of public health not politics. Many of his points resonated in that context. He uses the auto as a way of looking at it. Much of what we have done to reduce harm from cars can be applied to guns.

only in the U.S. do we lose one person every 15 minutes to gun violence.

I suggest that we try a new approach to reducing gun violence – a public health strategy.

We don’t ban cars, but we work hard to regulate them – and limit access to them – so as to reduce the death toll they cause. This has been spectacularly successful, reducing the death rate per 100 million miles driven by 95 percent since 1921.

The evidence is overwhelming that overall more guns and more relaxed gun laws lead to more violent deaths and injuries.

As we often say here: people are terrible judges of risk. We fear terrorism and mass shootings, but we’re far more likely to be killed by having a gun in the home.

although it is mass shootings that get our attention, they are not the main cause of loss of life.

Much more typical is a friend who shoots another, a husband who kills his wife – or, most common of all, a man who kills himself.

For skeptics who think that gun laws don’t make a difference, consider what happened in two states, Missouri and Connecticut. In 1995, Connecticut tightened licensing laws, while in 2007 Missouri eased gun laws.

Yet our laws have often focused more on weapons themselves (such as the assault weapons ban) rather than on access. In many places, there is more rigorous screening of people who want to adopt dogs than of people who want to purchase firearms.

In these two states, the laws affected access, and although there’s some indication that other factors were also involved in Connecticut (and correlations don’t prove causation), the outcomes are worth pondering.

It seems the be the enduring economic argument of our times. Are companies more important than people?

Our politicians know the answer. Corporations pay them lots. People don’t. When will we seek a government for the people not a government for profiteers?

In 2010, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which I direct, was authorized to study mandatory arbitration and write rules consistent with the study. After five years of work, we recently finalized a rule to stop companies from denying groups of consumers the option of going to court when they are treated unfairly.

Opponents have unleashed attacks to overturn the rule, and the House just passed legislation to that end. Before the Senate decides whether to protect companies or consumers, it’s worth correcting the record.

First, opponents claim that plaintiffs are better served by acting individually than by joining a group lawsuit. This claim is not supported by facts or common sense. Our study contained revealing data on the results of group lawsuits and individual actions. We found that group lawsuits get more money back to more people. In five years of group lawsuits, we tallied an average of $220 million paid to 6.8 million consumers per year. Yet in the arbitration cases we studied, on average, 16 people per year recovered less than $100,000 total.

Not only do group lawsuits help consumers recover money they otherwise would forfeit, but they also protect many more consumers by halting and deterring harmful behavior. For example, when banks reordered bank debits to charge more overdraft fees, consumers sued and recovered $1 billion. Most banks have since stopped the practice.

Cash bail is among the many reforms needed in the criminal justice system. In many cases it’s a gateway to a life of crime as the defendant’s life destabilizes while they sit in jail unable to pay.

The system remains as it is because of a strong industry lobby to keep the profits flowing.

To be perfectly clear here we have a system that negatively impacts a significant number of lives just so an infintely smaller number of rich people can get richer.

The harm that even short-term detention can cause is profound. Jobs are lost, children are removed and lives fall apart, setting off even more of the instability that is itself a predictor of crime.

The harm that even short-term detention can cause is profound. Jobs are lost, children are removed and lives fall apart, setting off even more of the instability that is itself a predictor of crime.

The growing consensus against cash bail cuts across party lines, and includes law enforcement leaders, prosecutors, defense lawyers, the courts and religious leaders.

The only defender of the system, it seems, is the industry that profits from it. States and localities around the country have begun imposing long overdue reforms to their bail systems. But the multibillion-dollar bail-bond industry, which charges defendants to guarantee their appearance in court, is pushing hard in the other direction. The Times reported Monday on two lawsuits filed in federal court in New Jersey over the summer challenging a new state law that essentially eliminates money bail. Another suit, in New Mexico, challenges that state’s Supreme Court’s new rules governing bail. The industry is also fighting federal bail reform legislation.

But the profit motive can be a powerful bulwark against the truth.

The increase, largely during the 1990s and 2000s, happened as the politically influential bail-bond industry flexed its muscles and almost no one paid attention to the growing inequality and unfairness of the system.

The idea that philanthropy is the answer to funding social improvements is one that will only make things worse.

Wrapped in a pretty name philanthropies are special interests. Sure, they do tons of good, but they are not democratic by nature. In the worst cases they represnt the will of ine individual, who gets to the societal ills which get fixed. This is not a feasible long term solution to society’s need for more equitable distribution of resources.

We would not suggest turning down the billions and all the good which can be accomplished. We do suggest that charitable giving not be seen as an alternative to democratic selection of how to help those in need.

most of these donors have the best of intentions. But make no mistake: Their influence is growing in tandem with their largess, shifting power away from democratic institutions.